Rowan KY Clerk Sued For Not Issuing Marriage Licenses

The Democrat Governor of Kentucky apparently doesn't think the First Amendment of our Constitution is worth the $60,000 expense to uphold it:

However, the Kentucky Constitutional Law states that Marriage is between a man and woman. So the Kentucky governor isn't even complying with his own constitutional law, and on top of that, he is violating the First Amendment rights of his citizens as well.

It is Governor Beshear that belongs in jail, not the county clerk.

 

that would be a waste of 60k, she can do her job or find another she can do... it's really that simple

.

 

Are there no sodomites that can marry the sodomites, no additional personel that can be hired? Or must the county clerk be fired, fined, and sent to jail for invoking her First Amendment rights?

It isn't justice you seek, it is the imposition of your liberal agenda, by one man in a black robe; at the expense of our individual freedoms and liberties. Equality is your phony mantra; tyranny is your true agenda.

 

that is my point, move her to a position she can do, hire someone new for her position that can do it....

the government offers many jobs, sure there is one she can do......

as long as no one is there to do it, citizens have the right to sue the city, it's the city's job to find someone to do this job

while she is on the clock she IS the government.... so she can not decimate against citizens based on her religion

.

 

I think it should be noted that she is on the side of the Kentucky Constitution, which defines marriage as between a man and woman; she has the First Amendment on her side; and the Tenth Amendment, which gives providence to the states over matters not specifically enumerated to the Feds, is on her side as well.

As I see it, the only ones decimating the laws of our land are the SCOTUS and the Kentucky Governor; and the only one standing on the side of the law the county clerk.

 

I always understood that my veteran's benefits were all part of my compensation package for defending the country.

Equal rights are not equal now? And you say *I* have an agenda?

This is the right to marry, remember?

No, you only forgot what aspect of equality we're talking about.

Before you forget again, tell us all how other people being able to marry, deprives you of your individual freedom. We would be fascinated.

 

she is in legal limbo right now, I admit that, only reason she still has a job, she will cost the tax payers of the county much money in legal costs over this, but she knows she will lose, only a mater of time as the SC as already spoken, when this case goes to the courts she will lose

.

 

Clerks take an oath to uphold the law. The entire law. Not just the parts that they like.

If they are unable to do that they need to resign or be fired. Their religious liberty does not give them the right to disobey the law.

As for caterers, some states have non-discrimination laws. Their religious beliefs do not give them the ability to break these laws. Keep trying.

The only ones here trying to oppress anyone are the christians who think they can force their own brand of sharia law within the united states.

 

Dodge noted.

 

Are they really? How can we be so sure that the three justices aren't political activists trying to pervert the amendments? As I see it they were arguing against individual liberty.

Whether you are gay or not, you now have a choice to marry either sex. They have expanded individual liberty although limiting government liberties. The other three thought the state should be able to dictate that liberty.

I think you have it backward.

 

There's also the question of whether Thomas counts as a separate judge, or whether Scalia just gets two votes.

 

If the government cannot show a purpose in restricting benefits that others receive, then it must give them out to all. Restriction based on veteran status serves a government purpose. Your side utterly failed to show the government purpose behind restricting benefits based on sexual orientation.

No, I do not think that is what the 9th A is for at all. I think its purpose is exactly as it states. And no one imposed gay marriage on anyone.

I'm not a gay activist. I just look around the world at people who blindly hate a class of people, and I take the hated people's side. Let's see, who is leading the charge against gays in the world? Putin, Islamic supremacists? No thanks, I'll pick the opposite team of those guys...

 

Kim Davis wants her 15 minutes of fame. One year from now most people will be saying, "Kim, Who?"